Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinod Page 1 Of 25 on 15 October, 2015
In the Court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Additional Sessions
JudgeII, South District, Saket Court, Delhi.
Session Case No. 40/2013
In the matter of :
State
Vs.
1) Vinod Kumar
S/o. Sh. Ram Das
R/o. Jhuggi, behind Quarter No. 1217,
Sector 1, RK Puram, New Delhi.
FIR No. : 208/12
Police Station : RK Puram
Under sections : 498A/302/201 IPC
Date of assignment : 29.01.2013
Reserved for order on : 15.09.2015
Date of decision : 30.09.2015
JUDGMENT
1. Mutual love and affection drove Vinod and Sumita towards each other in such a situation where they entered into a matrimonial alliance. The alliance was initially opposed by the State Vs. Vinod Page 1 of 25 parents of Sumita but the power of love seemingly prevailed upon her parents too and they also agreed to formalize the relations between the parties and that solved and a formal marriage ceremony took place on 14th October 2004 in Arya Samaj Mandir. On 27/1/05 a marriage reception was also hosted by the family of Sumita, as demanded by the family of Vinod, in which around Rs. 5 lakhs was spent including the amount spent on dowry articles and the parents of the bride apart from holding the function also gifted jewelry, clothes and basic household items as is there in a traditional and conventional marriage in the Indian Society. It seems that the love could not last between the parties and differences arose between Vinod and Sumita in the very early part of the marriage. Nevertheless they pulled along and a child was born out of the wedlock. The relations between the parties however, came to such a stage that by 2012 it was reported that Sumita was not only harassed for dowry but was allegedly killed by Vinod.
2. In fact, the information was received by the family of the deceased on 1/10/12 at about 10/10:30am from PS RK Puram that Sumita has died. The matter was already in to the notice of the police and based upon such information, an FIR bearing No. 208/12 was registered on the basis of the statement of the brother of the deceased Suraj. The investigation carried out by the police pursuant to the State Vs. Vinod Page 2 of 25 registration of the FIR resulted into filing of the charge sheet against accused Vinod u/Ss 498A/302/201 IPC.
3. Based upon the allegations in the charge sheet, the charge was accordingly framed u/Ss 498A, 302 and 201 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution, in order to drive home its case, examined 30 witnesses and concluded the evidence. Thereafter, the evidence on record was put to the accused and his statement u/S 313 Cr.PC was recorded. Accused in his defence examined Sh. Madanlal, Smt. Sitadevi and Sh. Sunder Pal and thereafter, closed his defence evidence.
5. Arguments were raised by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and Ld. Addl. PP for State. I have considered the submissions and gone through the record as well.
6. LD. Addl. PP for State submitted that the testimony of public persons including the family of the deceased, Chanderpal and his daughter Sheorani, who happen to be the neighbour of the deceased and accused, together with the son of the deceased and the accused ,namely Master Hardik, if read along with the testimony of PW2 Dr. Akhilesh Raj who has given the cause of death as shock due to multiple blunt force injuries, then it emerges on record that it is the accused who is responsible for causing the murder of his own wife. State Vs. Vinod Page 3 of 25 The incidentals of the investigation have been deposed by remaining witnesses / police witnesses.
7. The Ld. Counsel for the accused on the other hand submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that it was the accused who had caused those injuries to the deceased. It was asserted that the deceased came home drunk on the fateful day and fell down. She was already having injuries on her body indicating that she was already assaulted and died due to the same. It is asserted that the family of the deceased i.e. her parents and siblings were not happy with the marriage of the deceased with accused and that there was some dispute between the deceased and her family with regard to some immovable property and qua the money advanced by the deceased and the accused to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/ at the time of marriage of Sooraj that is the brother of the deceased Sumita. These factors coupled with the issue of the custody of the child, has prompted the parents and siblings of the deceased to depose against the accused. The child i.e. Hardik was and is in custody of the parents / siblings of the deceased who has been thoroughly brainwashed and poisoned by them against his own father i.e. accused and that is how he has stood against his own father ,the accused, which cannot and should not be read against him. With these contentions, it is submitted that the death of the Sumita was due to accidental fall and the injuries State Vs. Vinod Page 4 of 25 sustained by her were sustained by her somewhere outside the home, which could have even been caused by the parents / siblings of the deceased in order to deprive the deceased and the accused of the share in the property and in order to wash off their hands from paying the loan of Rs. 3.50 lakhs. In this context an earlier incident has been quoted by the Ld. Defence counsel qua which reference is there on record that deceased was administered some poisonous / unwholesome substance in tea on 16.03.2012 when she and accused visited her parents. The matter was albeit reported to police through the document Ex.PW8/DC and deceased was taken to hospital also but further action was not pressed for by the deceased and the accused. This instance reflects that the accused has been falsely implicated by the parents / sibling of the deceased. Had there been any grudge in the mind of the accused he would not have purchased property in the name of the deceased. It is further contended that not only that there is no eye witness. There was no motive with the accused to kill his own wife. And the testimony of the only person/witness who is near to the stage of an eye witness is that of the son of the accused and deceased which cannot be relied as the child was too young to know, understand, reflect and recall, besides being tutored by the mother and siblings of the deceased with whom he is residing since the day of incident.
State Vs. Vinod Page 5 of 25
8. As held in State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master & Ors., 2010 VIII AD (S.C) 401 = AIR 2010 SC 3071, before appreciating evidence of the witnesses examined in the case, it would be instructive to refer to the criteria for appreciation of oral evidence. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of witness read as a whole appears to have ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
9. Testimony of 4 persons is of utmost importance i.e. Chanderpal, daughter of Chanderpal namely Sheorani, son of the accused and the deceased namely Master Hardik and Dr. Akhilesh Raj. According to the testimony of PW2 Dr. Akhilsh Raj, who had State Vs. Vinod Page 6 of 25 conducted the postmortem examination of Sumita on 01st October 2012 . He found 16 injuries on the various parts of her body. He came to the conclusion that the cause of death was shock due to multiple blunt force injuries and injuries No. 1 to 16 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, as can be seen from the document Ex.PW2/A. The second opinion of Dr. Akhilesh came on record when the parcel containing black coloured belt was submitted with the request to provide opinion as to whether the injuries on the body of the deceased were caused by the belt or not; time of injuries; whether the injuries on the body of deceased could be caused by fists, kicks belt etc., or otherwise. According to PW2 Dr. Akhilesh, the injuries mentioned in the Postmortem report Ex.PW2/A were possible by blunt force like fists, kicks and belts etc and the time of injury was about a day old from the date of postmortem examination. The opinion as referred above is Ex.PW2/B. The testimony of PW2 Dr. Akhilesh could not be shaken so far as the cause of death is concerned and contribution of the injuries is concerned. He has ruled out possibility of such injuries being possible due to sudden fall on account of intoxication, thereby confirming the fact that the deceased had died on account of the injuries / assault by fists, kicks and belt and the assault most likely took place on 30/9/12.
10. Another material aspect about the assault on the State Vs. Vinod Page 7 of 25 deceased can be inferred from the statement of PW4 Chanderpal, who happens to be the neighbour of the accused, rather, the person who had provided the space behind his government accommodation in RK Puram to the accused and the deceased to live in a make shift kind of arrangement and his daughter namely PW28 Sheorani. The testimony of the son of the deceased and the accused PW30 Master Hardik is also very vital and important in this context. The crux of the testimony of these three witnesses is to the effect that on 29/9/12 at about 10:30pm deceased came back home and her husband and son were already present at their house behind H. No. 1217, Sector 1, RK Puram. It was noticed by PW4 Chanderpal that deceased fell down in front of her jhuggi on the uneven floor. Chanderpal alongwith his daughter reached there and picked up the deceased and took her to her home. Sumita was not in a position to speak at that time. Accused also came there. Sumita started vomiting, whose face was cleaned by the accused. In front of Chanderpal, accused asked Sumita as to where she had gone as he had visited his home twice earlier but could not find her. The deceased did not reply, which enraged the accused who took out the belt and hit deceased twice or thrice. Chanderpal tried to save the deceased and prevailed upon the accused to calm down. The condition of the deceased was such that Chanderpal requested the accused to take her to the hospital, which State Vs. Vinod Page 8 of 25 was not cared by the accused, who obstinately stated that she would regain consciousness by herself.
11. On the following morning Chanderpal came to know through one of his neighbour Gulbir Singh and also saw that accused was threatening his wife . Deceased was lying on the floor of the house and was not able to speak. Chanderpal again tried to prevail upon the accused to take Sumita to the hospital and get her medically treated. On 30/9/12, at about 10:30pm, Chanderpal came to know that Sumita expired.
12. What transpired in the intervening period has come on the record in the testimony of PW30 Hardik, the son of the deceased and the accused who is a child witness and was about 56 years of age when the incident took place. His testimony has been recorded after taking precautions so that he may be at ease, which can be seen from the responses given by him and the drawings made by him while sitting in the Court before recording of his statement, which are part of the record and annexed with the statement.
13. He has deposed about the incident which is to the effect that there was a fight between his parents in which his mother was assaulted with a belt and danda by his father. He went to sleep in the house of his neighbours and when he came back the next morning, he found that his mother / deceased was lying motionless having State Vs. Vinod Page 9 of 25 black spots on her body. Hardik was dropped by the accused to his grandparents and when Hardik came back, he found his mother was wrapped in a bed sheet and was kept on big ice bricks and incense sticks were burning around the body. He deposed that police came there and he narrated about what had happened to the police'uncle'.
14. The cross examination of the child witness Master Hardik was conducted with the help of a questionnaire prepared by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. It is evident from his testimony that there was some fight between his parents in which his mother was assaulted by his father. On the next day of the assault, he found his mother motionless indicating that she was dead by that time having injury marks on her body. His statement u/S 164 Cr.PC Ex.PW5/B was also recorded which also substantiates the case of the prosecution as well as the testimony of Chanderpal with regard to the assault on the deceased by the accused.
15. In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (1997)5SCC 341, while dealing with the reliability of witnesses who was ten years old, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that a child witness, if found competent to depose to the facts and is reliable, such evidence could form the basis of conviction. The evidence of a child witness and the credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the State Vs. Vinod Page 10 of 25 court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored.
16. In Panchhi & others Vs. State of U.P (1998) 7SCC 177, it has been held thus:
"Courts have laid down that evidence of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. It is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law (vide Prakash Vs. State of M.P (1992)4 SCC225, Baby Kandayanathil Vs. State of Kerala 1993 Supp(3) SCC 667, Raja Ram Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 9SCC 287 and Dattu Ramrao Sakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra)."
Similar view has been expressed in State of UP Vs. Ashok Dixit and another (2000) 3SCC70.
In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh & Anr.
(2011)4SCC 786, after considering a large number of its judgments Supreme Court came to the conclusion as under :
"In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored the Court can reject his statement partly or fully. However an inference as to whether the child State Vs. Vinod Page 11 of 25 has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition".
17. Evidently the testimony of Master Hardik is free from any kind of taint which may render it unreliable or doubtful. He appeared at ease while deposing in the court ,childlike innocence and curiosity was very much there .He stood his ground in the cross examination conducted with the help of the questionnaire given by Ld Defence counsel and those questions were put to him by the court .All through he appeared normal .As such his testimony becomes worthy of reliance and credit and therefore acted upon.
18. The testimony of the above referred three witnesses namely Chanderpal,his daughter Sorani and Master Hardik when read with the testimony of Dr. Akhilesh Raj, then the defence taken by the defence counsel goes into pieces that the deceased sustained injury somewhere else and though died in the house but the accused had no role or contribution in that ,which apparently is incorrect.
19. It has also come on record in the testimony that the parties had strained relations primarily on account of the fact that the deceased was a person of independent nature and this fact gets substantiated from the publication in the newspaper that even her own parents had disowned her due to her such questionable conduct and behaviour. The reason for such publication was the behaviour and State Vs. Vinod Page 12 of 25 conduct of the deceased being disobedient which her parents disapproved. It appears that accused was suspecting the character of his wife and when he could not find her in the house on his two visits on 29/9/12 and then he could not control his anger When the deceased came back home drunk badly so much so that she fell down before entering the house and vomited, which blew the lid off and the accused assaulted her so badly that the injuries resulted into her death.
20. So far as the allegations u/S 498A IPC are concerned, there appears not much substance to the same inasmuch as no previous incident was ever reported about any harassment on account of dowry rather, a complaint was lodged by the deceased against her own parents suspecting some foul play when the deceased and the accused visited them once, as after taking the tea the deceased started vomiting and suspicion of administration of some poisonous substance was there but then the matter was hushed up and not taken up further though it was reported to the police. Similarly, the allegation u/S 201 IPC are also not substantiated as apparently there was no act on the part of the accused to wipe out the evidence. He had merely kept the body of the deceased on ice bricks and seemingly, incense sticks were also placed around her. The body of the deceased was not attempted to be removed anywhere, nor for that State Vs. Vinod Page 13 of 25 matter, the belt which was used to assault the deceased was removed anywhere or destroyed anyway. In these circumstances, the allegations u/S 498A/201 IPC remain unsubstantiated.
21. However, the total and cumulative effect of the evidence coming on the record including the FSL report, which was tendered on record by the Ld. Addl. PP, through his statement dated. 15/9/15 which can be read in evidence, reflects that the contention that the deceased had consumed alcohol was correct and seemingly, that acted as a catalyst for the assault which led to the death of Sumita. Though it is a case which is on the borders of being an eye witness's account and of course circumstances or circumstantial evidences are also there, which need to be read and taken into account collectively . Nevertheless, the testimony of PW20 Hardik , PW4 Chanderpal and to some extent Sheorani's testimony amounts to the version of an eye witnesses' account and when it is read in conjunction with the testimony of PW2 Dr. Akhilesh, then it becomes a case where more or less direct evidence is available. In any eventuality it was a case where death was not natural and was a result of multiple injuries sustained by the deceased, which were caused by the accused as evidence is there that he assaulted the deceased. The accused did not take the deceased to the hospital despite being repeatedly requested by PW4 Chanderpal. No reason has been given for not taking her to State Vs. Vinod Page 14 of 25 the hospital, nor there is any reason as to why death of Sumita was not reported to her family members. Had there been no role of the accused, he would have definitely informed all concerned including the family of the deceased and certainly taken her to the hospital. All these circumstances, when taken into account with the testimony of Chanderpal, Sorani and Hardik coupled with the fact that the conduct of the deceased was questionable even in the eyes of her parents then it appears that the accused could not control his anger when he found her drunk and caused the death of Sumita by causing multiple injuries to her.
22. Thus ,evidently a kind of motive comes in to picture which was nothing but the objectionable conduct and behavior of the deceased,which was seemingly not approved by the accused and in a fit of rage he mercilessly assaulted Sumita.Motive was to punish the unapproved conduct.
23. The Apex Court in the case of Lekhraj @ Harisingh Vs State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 242 has held that it is not necessary to establish the motive in each and every case. Paragraphs 5 of the judgment reads as under:
"Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the view taken by the High Court firstly on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the State Vs. Vinod Page 15 of 25 accused to commit the murder. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Surinder Pal Jain Vs Delhi Administration (1993) 2 JT (SC) 206: (1993 AIE SCW 1561), wherein it has been held that "in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes pertinent significance as existence of the motive is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in such a case." This Court has further observed that "The absence of motive, however, puts the Courts on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture do not take place of legal proof".
This Court has not held that in the absence of any motive an accused cannot be convicted under S. 302, IPC. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel deserves to be rejected."
24. As a result it is clear that it is the accused who is responsible for causing the death of a human being i.e. Sumita whose identity is not in dispute and that amounts to culpable homicide, and whether this culpable homicide amounts to murder or otherwise is another dimension of the case.
25. In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465, it has been held as under: "........whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is "murder" or "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", on the facts of a case, it will be con venient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection be tween the act of the accused and the death, leads to the sec State Vs. Vinod Page 16 of 25 ond stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affir mative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 of the Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prose cution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of "murder" contained in Section
300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the of fence would be "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this ques tion is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", pun ishable under the first part of Section 304, of the Penal Code."
26. In the case of Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju v. State of Kerala (2004) 12 SCC 269, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"All "murder" is "culpable homicide" but not vice versa. Speaking generally, "culpable homicide" sans "special char acteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder". For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, "culpable homicide of the first degree". This is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as "murder". The second may be termed as "culpable homicide of the second degree". This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there is "culpable homicide of the third degree". This is the lowest type.State Vs. Vinod Page 17 of 25
10. The academic of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments pro vided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second part of Section 304. Distinction between "murder" and "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" has always vexed the courts. The confusion is caused, if courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow them selves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provi sions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the var ious clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following compara tive table will be helpful in appreciating the points of distinc tion between the two offences:
1. Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under Clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being in such a pecu liar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or condition. It is noteworthy that the "intention to cause death" is not an essen tial requirement of Clause (2). Only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause.
2. Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge on the part of the offender. Instances of cases falling under Clause (2) of Section 300 can be where the as sailant causes death by a fistblow intentionally given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause death of that particular person as a result of the rupture of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart, as the case may be. If the assailant had no such knowledge about the disease or special State Vs. Vinod Page 18 of 25 frailty of the victim, nor an intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence will not be murder, even if the injury which caused the death, was intentionally given. In Clause (3) of Sec tion 300, instead of the words "likely to cause death" occur ring in the corresponding Clause (b) of Section 299, the words "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" have been used.
Obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but real and if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The dif ference between Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause (3) of Section 300 is one of degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a cul pable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word "likely" in Clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probability as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily injury ... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature."
27. In another case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy V. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444, the Hon'ble Supreme Court enumerated some of the circumstances relevant to find out whether there was any intention to cause death on the part of the accused. The court observed:
"Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters plucking of a fruit, straying of a cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude State Vs. Vinod Page 19 of 25 word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no pre meditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by at tempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of mur der punishable under section 302, are not converted into of fences punishable under section 304 Part I/II, or cases of cul pable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as mur der punishable under section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or sev eral of the following, among other, circumstances : (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre meditation; (vii) whether there was any pri or enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or sever al blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not ex haustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention."
28. The intention to kill cannot be attributed to the accused as in that eventuality he would have certainly used some such weapon, having the potential to cause death and for that matter the State Vs. Vinod Page 20 of 25 belt could have been used by him to throttle the victim and if the intention would have been there, in that case, he would have used his own hands to throttle the victim as she was heavily drunk and was not in a position to resist or defend herself effectively. The accused wanted to vent out his anger and under such a rage, he seemingly kept on hitting the victim, mercilessly though. There were 16 injuries on the body of the deceased which indicates this position albeit none of the injuries were sufficient in itself individually to cause death. However, the doctor conducting the postmortem examination had noticed hematoma in respect of all the injuries which reflects that the force used was excessive which is not unusual in case a person seething under the anger. The absence of the victim from the house and her coming back home at around 10.00 P.M. in the night that too drunk was the reason which triggered the anger. It was sudden and emanated out of the questionable conduct and behavior of deceased. A husband getting angry in such a situation is not unusual but the accused should have controlled the anger and certainly should not have resorted to the kind of assault which was there on the person of the deceased. Nevertheless in these circumstances, the intention to kill is difficult to infer, but intention to cause bodily harm is very much there. The number of injuries reflect that intention to cause such injuries which could have likely resulted into death is not State Vs. Vinod Page 21 of 25 attributable to the accused, however, it cannot be believed that he was so unaware and novice so as to be oblivious of the kind of assault and its impact. There was no premeditation, no preparation and seemingly no conscious and deliberate planning of any kind as no vital or particular part of the body was targeted, except seemingly hitting mindlessly in a fit of anger without any dangerous , deadly or for that matter any such weapon ,primarily arising out of the factum of the absence of the deceased and then her coming back home drunk.As such intention to cause death or such bodily injury with likely result of death is not there. Thus a kind of knowledge is imputable that the accused that he knew that the assault / bodily injury could be fatal. These factors take out the case from the ambit and definition of murder and bring it into the realm of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
29. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, accused Vinod is held guilty for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under section 304 (PartII), IPC and convicted thereof.
Announced in the open Court (VIMAL KUMAR YADAV) On 30 day of Sept., 2015 th Additional Sessions JudgeII, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
State Vs. Vinod Page 22 of 25 In the Court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Additional Sessions JudgeII, South District, Saket Court, Delhi. Session Case No. 40/2013 In the matter of :
State Vs.
1) Vinod Kumar S/o. Sh. Ram Das R/o. Jhuggi, behind Quarter No. 1217, Sector 1, RK Puram, New Delhi.FIR No. : 208/12
Police Station : RK Puram Under sections : 304 (II) IPC Date of judgment : 30.09.2015 Date of order on sentence: 15.10.2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for State. Convict Vinod in person. 1.0 It is informed on behalf of the convict that he is in State Vs. Vinod Page 23 of 25
custody since the date of his arrest, a young man having his whole life in front of him, he is father of a child. His conduct has been upto the mark during the period of custody. The offence was a result of an uncontrolled anger and that is why the convict has landed in such a situation. The deceased was his wife and it was a love marriage, therefore, there was no occasion with him to commit such an offence but he is a victim of the circumstances in which he was placed. With these submissions, it is submitted that he may be considered for the lightest possible sentence.
2.0 Ld. Addl. PP on the other hand while advocating the commensurate sentence for what has been done by the convict sought that the convict has no plausible explanation as to why he could not control his anger and resolve the issue with his wife / deceased. Violence is no solution. Therefore, in these circumstances, the convict deserves to be punished suitably in terms of what has been done by him.
3.0 I have considered the submissions made by the rival sides and perused the record as well. There is no dispute about the fact that it was primarily a love marriage which came to be arranged. Thus, in these circumstances, there should not have been any occasion between the couple to reach at a stage where one of the party to the marriage became a victim at the hands of the other State Vs. Vinod Page 24 of 25 party that too where one gets killed in the process. Therefore, the acts of the convict needs to be taken into account and there being no justification, therefore, it needs to be condemned and punished. As such, considering the matter in its entirety, convict Vinod is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/ as fine in default to undergo SI for a period of 06 months u/S 304 IPC. The convict shall be entitled to the benefit of set of u/S 428 Cr.P.C.
4.0 Copy of judgment and sentence be provided to the convict free of cost.
5.0 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (VIMAL KUMAR YADAV) On 15 day of October, 2015 Additional Sessions JudgeII, th South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi State Vs. Vinod Page 25 of 25